Background
The claimant, ZHB, arrived in the UK in 2022 and claimed asylum. At the point of arrival, he stated that he was born in 2005, meaning he was 16 years old. The Home Office carried out a visual assessment of his age and rejected this, concluding instead that he was an adult with a likely year of birth of 2001. He was subsequently dispersed to a hotel and referred to Conwy Council, who undertook a brief enquiry and determined that he was an adult.
He later moved to Cardiff, where he was re‑referred for an age assessment. Social workers from Cardiff attended, concluded that a full Merton‑compliant assessment was required, and treated ZHB as a child pending that fuller assessment.
ZHB received support and assistance as a looked after child whilst the age assessment was progressed, which later concluded he was an adult, some 7 months after being in care.
ZHB challenged Cardiff’s assessment on two grounds:
Ground 1 — Article 8 ECHR
He argued the assessment breached his rights because:
He relied heavily on the European Court of Human Rights case Darboe v Italy, which talks about “minimum procedural guarantees”.
Ground 2 — Duty to have due regard to the UNCRC (s.7(2) Social Services & Well‑being Act 2014)
He argued Cardiff:
What the court said
Ground 1 — Article 8 ECHR: Cardiff DID NOT breach his rights
The judge held that Article 8 applies to age assessments because age is part of personal identity. But he rejected the idea that age assessments require a guardian and lawyer in every case.
Instead, the test is whether the local authority took “reasonable steps” and acted with “reasonable diligence” to ensure procedural safeguards.
The judge emphasised the safeguards Cardiff did provide:
The judge concluded:
“the procedural safeguards… were more than sufficient”
“the absence of a guardian… caused no prejudice”
He also rejected the idea that a lawyer would have changed anything at the time.
Ground 2 — Duty to have due regard to the UNCRC: also dismissed
Key finding:
The judge held that age assessments in Wales are now carried out under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, not under the Social Services & Well‑being Act 2014.
Therefore, the s.7(2) UNCRC duty does NOT apply to the age assessment itself.
“the assessment… was one conducted… under s.50 of the 2022 Act”
Even if the duty had applied, the judge said Cardiff would still have complied, because:
What this judgment means for social workers
Instead, the test is contextual and based on whether the young person can participate in an informed way.
The judge repeatedly emphasised the role of the Appropriate Adult: “fulfilled essentially the same function as a guardian”
The court treated adherence to the Toolkit as evidence of:
This reinforces the Toolkit as the core standard for Welsh practice.
Some useful take-aways for social workers
Although not a legal requirement, this does offer protection to young people and supports that we have undertaken a fair assessment.
Although some young people may benefit from legal advice or a guardian, the court was very clear that there is no automatic requirement to provide either during an age assessment. What is required is that the young person can take part in a way that feels safe, supported and understood.
This means your focus should be on:
If you can evidence that the young person was able to participate meaningfully the assessment is still procedurally fair.
The judgment reinforced that all assessments should be in line with the toolkit. It embeds UNCRC principles, trauma‑informed practice, participation rights and the procedural safeguards the court expects to see.
But it’s not enough to tokenistically write “this assessment was conducted in line with the toolkit”, you have to demonstrate it both in your approach and your report.
This is something that must be present in every assessment, regardless of the young person’s circumstances.
“Informed participation” means the young person:
Your recording should show how you achieved this, not just that you “did”. For example:
(FYI – need resources for this? Come and join us on SAEF training)
Finally, (if you’ve made it this far well done!) I want to share a short piece about the evidence table as it is explicitly referenced in the judgment.
Evidence Tables
Anyone who has been on our training knows we LOVE an evidence table and are one of the only training providers that talk about these. They are so useful and this judgment really reinforces why.
The courts don’t just look at the final conclusion of an age assessment, they look at how the social workers reached it.
The claimant argued that the Cardiff social workers placed too much weight on the earlier Home Office and Conwy assessments.
The judge rejected this argument, and the Evidence Table played a key role in that finding:
“Both of the earlier assessments were noted in an Evidence Table as carrying little weight individually, but weight was given to the fact that all three assessing bodies had reached the same conclusion”.
The judge could see that Cardiff did not simply rely on the earlier assessments.
The social workers considered them, gave each one little weight and reached their own view afresh.
This successfully defended the claimant’s argument that the earlier assessments had prejudiced the outcome. Because the reasoning was laid out clearly in the Evidence Table, the judge could follow the logic step by step.
For practitioners, this is a powerful reminder that how you record your reasoning matters just as much as the reasoning itself. Evidence tables make your thinking visible, structured and defensible and this judgment shows that courts pay attention to that. As we like to say in training “show your workings out!”
So if you want to be taught how to use evidence tables in your assessments, book onto our training here.
Want to read the judgment in full? Click here
Disclaimer: This blog post provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult relevant legal sources and seek professional guidance when conducting age assessments
